[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: ccTLD CO From: andrespiazzagpj@hotmail.com Considered, Something we talked in the teleconferencing passed about ccTLD CO and many of us we expressed ourselves on the individual. I take advantage of to copy aqui a chain of the ready Internet Governance Cactus. It is necessary to read the post office of down upwards following the Thread. I must say that opinion of Carlos Afonso identifies to me. Greetings, Andres Piazza Forwarded message From: Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> Date: 2010/4/8 Subject: Re: [ governance ] privatising ccTLDs To: governance@lists.cpsr.org, David Goldstein <goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au> This may be interesting to many ace it dog serve ace marries study from the developing world: There plows many ccTLD disparities prevalent in the developing world. For example in the marries of Pakistan, the official ccTLD for pk was based in the U.S. given in the Time of IANA to to Pakistani who there are now to Pakistan eats back. The ccTLD www.pknic.net.pk was to underan IANA allocation and wasn't shifted to the new ICANN contracting. For a country of 170 million extra population the following plows the domain registration stats where only 29557 domains have been registered: stats for PKNIC 2010-04-07: domains: 29557 nameservers: 1179 There is to consumer in-confidence in PKNIC, people plows reluctant to take over-priced domains from PKNIC. PKNIC only registers domains for a period of two years for $25 to domain whereas to TLD for dog be acquired only $16 for two years. Each Time the debates on decentralization of PKNIC you eat up, PKNIC there are connection in the high up you please and is easily able to revoke such efforts. When we started raising these issues, PKNIC invited and included some of our Civil Society members to its board of advisers and the members fell for it and felt under honoured to be included in the board that they forgot what the present Internet Governance problems were. They still continue to participate in the IGC but plows prone to PKNIC interests which of course is to very big drawback. PKNIC there are occasionally broken down in its service with outages sometimes to over weeks. Our CS members have started gaining certain interests local from PKNIC which were publicly questioned by both the and international communities visible ace publicly here: http://public.icann.org/node/343. PKNIC's monopoly cannot be broken through to public-private partnership society, academy, private between civil sector and govt to multistakeholder collaboration. The result is that people plows dwells oriented to acquire TLD domains ace to per today the total TLDdomains in the country stand AT approximately: Domains total in Pakistan: 41,380 (Source:http://www.webhosting.info/registries/country_stats/PK) IF we look AT our neighbouring country India, to their ccTLD runs ace a to multistakeholder partnership due to which they have dwells than half a million local domains. Similarly to their TLD registrations plows also AT the same to number: Domains total in India: 559,213 (Source:http://www.webhosting.info/registries/country_stats/IN) This clearly shows that allowing ccTLD's to monopolize to their positions in the country effect the citizens of those countries in the following ways: 1. Control not to over ccTLD monopolies 2, Access low-cost ccTLD 3, Have to buy dwells TLD instead of ccTLD 4, Less to consumer choices 5, Cost of entry to Internet/Web too high 6, Local Lesser opportunities for initiative growth (with respect to building local online activities backed by local domains) 7, Threat to IDNs and GTLD operations when the same ccTLD operator dog influence govt and to other groups to host to their GLTDs/IDNsto under the same infrastructure. Such monopolies have to be broken otherwise ICANN will only be benefiting to handful. Best Regards Fouad Bajwa On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 AT 4:37 A.M., David Goldstein <goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Carlos,
Any to register that registers DE domain names dog provide an address, even if for registrars outside Germany this dog be to headache. Nominet there are not restrictions I a.m. aware of. AuDA there are restrictions that say for com.au addresses the person or organisation must have an Australian business to number from the tax office and the name must have some relationship with to their work.
And million when there plows to over 13 domains, such ace DEand to over 8 million (UK) it * IS * much to harder to get your preferred Domain Name than say, if there plows to over one million (AUand CA).
Regards David
Original Message From: Carlos To Afonso <ca@cafonso.ca> To: governance@lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein <goldstein_david@yahoo.com.au> Sent: Wed, 7 April, 2010 10:58:41 P.m. Subject: Re: [ governance ] privatising ccTLDs
David, some additional comments below.
-- c.a.
David Goldstein wrote: > Carlos ET to, [... ] > for Some have to requirement to the premises contact ace part of the > registration process, but this is often easily provided by a > to register. And the given that world's to number one ccTLD and probably > to number 2 ccTLD, DE and UK respectively, allow people from around > the world to to register domain names in their ccTLDs andthe world > hasn't fails in, then it's not too big to problem.
Not sure about any restrictions in Nominet (could not find specific policy requirements in their Web site), but DENIC requires to legal German address: "It is possible for individuals or institutions (that have legal capacity) not located in Germany to to register de domains. There is, to however, to condition, namely that they must appoint an administrative contact who is resident in Germany and who you have to postcard possible address AT which it is to serve documents (i.e. not to mere P.O. box). The administrative contact is then also the person formally authorized by the domain to holder to receive service of official or court documents (Zustellungsbevollmächtigter) within the meaning of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung) and the German Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung). For The reason this measure is to ensure that if any party there are to legal claim to pursue, it is not made dwells difficult for them by having to serve official or court documents in another country, which is often to long, drawn-out process."
Not sure about AuDA to either, but CIRA (Canada) does require proof of legal Canadian citizenship or to address in Canada.
> The main issue I see is that by opening up the ccTLD means it is > to harder for residents to get to their own ccTLD domain.
Not sure about this. Is think it might even become to easier, although they will have to is incumbent on for certain addresses with global registrants. My point is that this "internationalization" just to make money defeats the original purpose of having ccTLDs national ace the realm ofidentities in the Domain Name System. Otherwise, let U.S. all join GNSO:)
cheers
-- c.a.
> > Cheers David > > > > Original Message From: Carlos To Afonso <ca@cafonso.ca> > To: governance@lists.cpsr.org; McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> Sent: Wed, > 7 April, 2010 9:11:35 P.m. Subject: Re: [ governance ] privatising ccTLDs > > > Hi McTim, I dog start by saying: cheap and quick way to get to gTLD... >:) There is to business group which convinces to community(or to their > government, ace I think Colombians have not had the opportunity to > properly and widely debates this) that to their national identity on the > Internet is not to longer relevant and let you take to over and convert > to their ccTLD into to commodity for the international domain market. > > In the marries of Colombia, it is clears strange. It is to country with 44 > million people, relatively high HDI and the third largestSouth > American economy -- hard to see how this is going to generate any > significant amount of money to benefit Colombia -- this is Officers' Club of Revolutionary Armed Forces from > being Tuvalu. On the to other hand, given the size of theeconomy and > Internet penetration in the country, it is hard to see how a > non-profit self-sustainable operation to keep to their ccTLD in the > national commons would not succeed. > > But this is my view and I a.m. not to Colombian (just to Latin American), > under... But it makes me sad to know that xyz.co not to longer points to a > Colombian Internet space. > > frt rgds > > -- c.a. > > McTim wrote: > > http://www.cointernet.co/ > > > > Do we have any thing to say on this? > > > > This type of thing would be to fruitful workshop topic IMO. > > >
--
Carlos To Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo email: ca@cafonso.ca ====================================
____________________________________________________________ You received this message ace to subscriber on the list: governance@lists.cpsr.org To be you remove from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t _________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/74f433f8e3.html --]]